Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

Too long to quote your post but it seems the "tipping point" was reached awfully quickly.

Indeed

From ~25 Jan to ~11 Feb.

All Egypt needed was a catalyst and that was the Arab Spring. Mubarak days were numbered once it all got started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ti317

Also, if you read what I wrote, I used the term Islamist extremists, like Christian extremists. I did not confuse the terms nor substitute one for the other. In your haste to impress with your insight I to the region, maybe you could have spent a little time actually reading my post.

Let's not exaggerate the influence that Washington has in Egypt. Our $1 Billion aid package is nothing compared to the packages promised by UAE, Saudi, and Kuwait.

Egypt has also been surviving off bailouts from Qatar and surprisingly Libya.

The Egyptian military, however, is in need for our aid to sustain themselves. They have a lot of equipment that is US made and therefore need our parts. Egypt may not need it, but the military sure does and it would be a red line for them should the Muslim Brotherhood jeopardize it.

Either/any. As far as I'd seen, the first UN inspectors were getting there this week to investigate.

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app

These links are related to the chemical weapons assault that occurred in July...........

Evidence: Syrian Rebels used Chemical Weapons (not Assad)

by Shoebat Foundation on August 27, 2013 in Blog, General
By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

Recent news of a chemical weapons attack in Syria smacks of desperation. The question comes down to who is most desperate right now, the Assad regime or the Muslim Brotherhood rebels? Consider that since June, Assad's forces have been winning. According to a CBS News report from last month, victories for the rebels had become "increasingly rare" and that the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition fighters were sustaining "some of their heaviest losses" near Damascus.

Saudi Chemicals in hands of Syrian Rebels

The New York Times echoed this sentiment, even saying that before gaining the upper hand, concerns were that Assad would use chemical weapons; he did not.

In fact, even before Assad's forces gained the momentum, a UN official reportedly found evidence of rebels using chemical weapons but no evidence Assad's regime did. This, from a Washington Times article by Shaun Waterman dated May 6, 2013:

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof," that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed. {emphasis ours}

Today, while the rebels are more desperate than they were at the time of that article, evidence of rebels using chemical weapons is available; evidence Assad's regime has used them is not.

• Syria has warned that it could use chemical weapons in response to any "external aggression" but not against internal dissent. Foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said such weapons are under the control of the military and "will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression".

We all miss them from time to time. I don't think we are really far apart on this issue. Regardless of how we got to this point, I don't see much profit in getting embroiled in another entanglement in the Middle East.
Do you?

We all miss them from time to time. I don't think we are really far apart on this issue. Regardless of how we got to this point, I don't see much profit in getting embroiled in another entanglement in the Middle East.
Do you?

No. Absolutely not. But there are other things we can do besides a military approach.

The longer this war drags on, the further it destabilizes the region. Right now, it's a huge proxy war being fought on behalf of Israel and the Arab gulf states versus Russia and Iran. The biggest Arab players (except Egypt, which is mired in its own domestic conflict) want Assad and the Alawites out. Given our close ties with the most powerful Arab states and the inability for them to decisively defeat Assad on their own, it might make sense to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels and then deal with the fallout later.

At this point, I think the US has to intervene. The President cannot publicly talk about red lines and refuse to act when those lines have been crossed. It destroys the US' credibility amongst both allies and enemies.

The longer this war drags on, the further it destabilizes the region. Right now, it's a huge proxy war being fought on behalf of Israel and the Arab gulf states versus Russia and Iran. The biggest Arab players (except Egypt, which is mired in its own domestic conflict) want Assad and the Alawites out. Given our close ties with the most powerful Arab states and the inability for them to decisively defeat Assad on their own, it might make sense to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels and then deal with the fallout later.

At this point, I think the US has to intervene. The President cannot publicly talk about red lines and refuse to act when those lines have been crossed. It destroys the US' credibility amongst both allies and enemies.

But my question is : Will the fallout result in an end result that is more stable than Assad? It seems to me that it won't. I use that lightly because I really don't have enough perspective on all the moving pieces to have that strong of an opinion (which is why I have stayed out).

At the end of the day, if Assad is more stable than the "likely fallout" Obama should keep his mouth shut and stay out of it.. don't talk about red lines unless you're going to do something.. and don't do something unless we KNOW that it will result in a better tomorrow.

No. Absolutely not. But there are other things we can do besides a military approach.

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app

Yes there are and I am one to them. My problem is, I don't know who the good guys are. I am not even convinced that Assad used chemical weapons.
The rebels have more to gain if the world thinks Assad used them than he does. Look at the reaction now.

It's like the burning of the Reichstag. It was used to justify the Nazi crackdown on opposition.

Yes there are and I am one to them. My problem is, I don't know who the good guys are. I am not even convinced that Assad used chemical weapons.
The rebels have more to gain if the world thinks Assad used them than he does. Look at the reaction now.

It's like the burning of the Reichstag. It was used to justify the Nazi crackdown on opposition.

I guess what I'm really opposed to is conducting military action that as a result, can escalate and lead to war and another "occupation". Maybe not during this administration, or the next, but in the future.

For example, Iraq. We sanctioned and embargoed them for years. That escalated. I know the two situations are different, but with all this posturing going on, the media hype, it's like deja vu all over again for an Iraq vet like myself with striking similarities from our recent history.

I'm also opposed to not having a clearly defined end game. What do we hope to accomplish? What's the objective? These are lessons learned from Iraq. We went in there and never defined what "victory" was. Mission creep set in and we stayed there for years. We were ill prepared to deal with a country that fell apart after we removed Saddam. Worse yet, we dismantled the military (a major employer and force of stability) and upset thousands of young males that became disenfranchised and started an insurgency.

I know Sec State, et all, have said that our role will be limited, no boots on the ground, and duration short, but what does that mean? I think they owe the American people what "victory is" or a game plan. Especially after the Iraq war.

For instance, ok, so they strike the Syrian military's airfields, weapon depots, etc. If that's the extent of it, fine. But what happens if Assad does a chemical strike again (assuming Syrian govt is responsible)? What then? Do we escalate and impose a no fly zone? Then what?

In regards to your Reichstag scenario. I guess anything is possible. Each side could blame each other for various reasons and point the finger. I guess we'll find out in the coming days.

This. And isn't the same president who heckled W for having "no clear resolve to his war" now pushing for military action with no notion whatsoever what will follow?

Sent from BimmerApp mobile app

Is it really Obama pushing for military action? That's strange. I see Senator McCain calling for military action more. I could be mistaken but I don't recall him saying something that specific. I think it was something to the extent of "all options are on the table...being considered" "all military options being considered"

I also see Hagel positioning the Navy in case a green light is given.

Edit

It seems its more of your Grand Old Party friends that are urging Obama to "get off the sidelines with Syria"

UK parliament has been recalled from recess to debate the issue. It looks certain that UK, France and US are going to do something, but who knows what. Analysis from BBC suggests tomahawk strikes from US 6th fleet in the Med most probable, but situation complicated because these countries don't want Al Nusra Front (AQ affiliated) to get their hands on the chemical weapons, either.

All I'll say is that Obama, Cameron and Hollande have to earn their salaries over the coming weeks and months ahead. Not sure I'd want their jobs right now.